Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5355, 27 May 1878, Page 2

Tub movement to establish hospitals in country districts is deserving of all the encouragement and support which can bo given to it. By this, means many a bushman, overtaken by accident or disease, may obtain medical aid and nursing which would otherwise not be within'his reach, and the hospitals at the chief centres of population, which are usually overcrowded, would be greatly relieved." It is satisfactory to learn that at Masterton the project of starting such an institution in that township is progressing favorably. From the Standard of Saturday last, we learn .that a public meeting was held there on the previous Thursday for the purpose of appointing a Committee of Management and -to receive the report of the Provisional Committee, appointed to take steps to open subscription lists, secure a site, get plans, specifications, &c.,' of a suitable building, and to transact other,preliminary work in connection with the object in view. The report stated that the public had dome forward in the most liberal manner, money and land being given to the extent of £i2i, and in addition to this sum, a choijue fur X 5 was presented by Mr J. C*.

Ferguson just before the meeting, with the promise of another j£s when the building was in course of erreotion, The Chairman of the Provisional Committee, (Mr. R. G. Williams) said he’-, couldvnot- 'refrain from passing au euconium - upon, the lady, hy whose earnest endeavours* the funds for the hospital had -.reached such A sum,he alluded to Miss Sutherland (great cheers),; .this lady had first started the idea, her kind heart being grieved at the idea; of persons suffering fromsevere injuries having to bo conveyed; such a great distance before getting relief ; the greater part of the molioy had been collected by this lady, and the feelings of the district had been aroused by her energetic earnestness. Arrangements have been made by which the proposed hospital is to be made a county one, to be subsidised by the Wairarapa Bast County Council, aud the property to be vested in trustees. .'The committee have sold an acre of laud on the terrace for the sum of El5O, and have purchased nearly 3 ,acres from Mr J..V, Smith for the same amount, on which.'later'site'it is proposed to erect the hospital, provided a .good supply of water man-be obtained. The tender, of Messrs. Blinkhorn and Peacock has been accepted, at i£slo, for the supply of the material and erection of the . building. The following gentlemen were appointed to serve on the “ Mastertou Borough. Hospital., oom-imtte;—-Tho Chairman Wairarapa East Comity 'Council, ex officio; the Chairman Mastertou Highway Board, ex' officio;. the Chairman Taratahi-Carterton Highway Board, ex officio; the Mayor of Mastertou, cx officio ; and Messrs. Pharazyn, H. 11. Bunny, J. O. Yorke, Perry, Vile, Oaselberg, Xorus, and Girdlestorie. A vote of thanks to the chairman and committee,’ and a like compliment to Miss Sutherland for. the part she .had taken in the matter, terminated the proceedings. Here wo have an example of what may ha done by a few individuals—chiefly, indeed, by one, a lady—in starting and fairly setting afloat an undertaking which will be of great benefit to the Wairarapa District. It is to be hoped that the good example will be followed in other localities where, hospitals are required, and there must be many which dome under this category. It is well to bear in mind, also, that as the settlement of the outlying parts of the colony progresses the want of county hospitals is every day becoming more pressing. .

The Mercantile Gazette of the 18th in-taut has aa article calling attention to an English case, decided recently in the Court of Common JL J has, which is of considerable interest to business people. The matter came before the Court in the shape of an appeal from the decision of, the Judge of the County Court of Northumberland. The facts appear' briefly these :—An action was brought by the plaintiff, a Mr. Hindlaugh; as drawer of a bill of exchange against the defendant, a Mr. Blakely, as the acceptor. The question at issue was whether the bill was sufficiently accepted by the defendant having merely written his name across the face of it, without having used any words amounting to a statement that he accepted the bill. The County Court Judge held that there had not been an acceptance in writing to satisfy the Act, 19 and 20 "Viet. c. 97, s. 0. The plaintiff appealed, Webster for the plaintiff ; Meak for the defendant. Judgment was reserved. The Court (Grove, J., and Denman, J.l held that the County Court Judge was right, on the ground that, since tire statute required that the acceptance, in order to be binding, should be in writing on such bill and signed by the acceptor,”' the mere signature of a name was not sufficient to fulfil the double requirements that the acceptance should be in writing and signed by the acceptor. Sundry articles appear in legal journals commenting on the case, and are quoted by the Gazette referred to, from which we take the following, copied from the Solicitors' Journal-. “The rule by which the Court had to guide itself is contained in 19 and 20 Vic., c. 97, s.- 6, which enacts that * no acceptance shall be sufficient to bind or, charge any person, unless the same be in writing on such bill, and signed by the acceptor, or some person duly authorised by him.’ The language of this section seems to point to a written acceptance distinct from the signature of the acceptor, and to require both. And this view is confirmed by the history of legislation on this subject, and by the; construction put upon the earlier statute of 1 and 2 Geo. IV., c. 78, s. 2. That Act provided that ‘the acceptance must be in writing on such bill,’ and iu.Dufaur v. Oxeudeu (1 Moo. & E. 20), it was held that an acceptance was good within this statute, though unsigned. In face of the language of-19 and 20 Vic., o. 97, s. 6, and of the fact that at the time when the statute was passed a written acceptance. on the bill was recognised as a thing distinct ifroffi a.aignature on the bill, it: is difficult to see how the Court could have come to a different conclusion. The acceptance must be a thing in writing, *and that thing must be signed.” The majority of the mercantile community here will no 1 doubt remember that the New Zealand Act ■ “to amend the Daws affecting Trade and Commerce," passed in 1860, enacts in section 7 that ‘No acceptance of any bill of exchange, whether inland or foreign, made after the 31st December, 1360, shall be sufficient to bind or charge any person, unless the same be iu writing on such bill, or, if there be more than one part of such bill, on one of the said parts, and signed by the acceptor, or some person duly authorised by him.”

Complaints have been made from time to time of the unauthorised appropriation of Press telegrams. Whether this can be done legally or not will be tested shortly, as we learn that Messrs. Holt and McCarthy have commenced an action against the proprietors of a newspaper published in the Middle Island for a breach of copyright. A case has recently been tried at Singapore, which, although ■ not actually on all-fours with the New Zealand one, has nevertheless some features in common with it, and the principle involved is the same. In reference to it tho Melbourne Argus of the 13th lust, says :—“A case of some importance, as concerning the copyright of telegrams, has been recently decided in the Supreme Court at Singapore, before the Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Sidgreaves. The plaintiffs were the proprietors of the Straits Times, and the defendant was the owner of a paper called the Dailg Sheet. The former paper had purchased the exclusive right of publishing Reuter's telegrams iu Singapore, but had allowed the defendant to use the telegrams iu his paper after they had appeared in the Straits Times, on payment of a trifling subsidy. After a time the defendant gave up paying the subsidy, but continued to publish the telegrami as before, and application was made to the Supreme Court to restrain him from domg so. The case was argued on tho 6th of March, and on the Stlitho Chief Justice gave judgment. He was entirely with the plaintiffs iu the matter. -‘ The defendant,’ he said, ‘is confessedly taking advantage of the plaintiff’s enterprise and expenditure to make a profit for himself. This the law will hot permit.’ The injunction prayed for was granted, with costs.”